Amendment 4

[Matt J]

Did I miss the discussion on this?

A closer look at Amendment 4 - The Daily Record - Jacksonville, Florida

Fierce political battles over Amendment 4 have been waged for several years now, with the growth management amendment?s fate resting in the hands of voters when they head to the polls in November. Between now and then, much airtime for paid advertisements and public displays from both support and opposition groups is to be expected as the issue is one of the hottest political topics in Florida.What?s it say?The amendment, as to be stated on the ballots:
?Public participation in local government comprehensive land use planning benefits the conservation and protection of Florida?s natural resources and scenic beauty and the long-term quality of life of Floridians. Therefore, before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan or amend a comprehensive land use plan, such proposed plan or plan amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum following preparation by the local planning agency, considering by the governing body as provided by general law, and notice thereof in a local newspaper of general circulation. Notice and referendum will be provided by general law. The Amendment shall become effective immediately upon approval by the electors of voters.?
But, what does it mean?
In 1985, Florida Legislature enacted The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act that requires all Florida counties and municipalities to adopt Local Government Comprehensive Plans to guide future growth and development ? including land use, housing, transportation and infrastructure, among other aspects. Local governments ? in Duval County?s case its City Council ? are able to send amendments to the Department of Community Affairs and affected agencies for recommendations, objections and a public notice of intent before potential approval. Amendment 4 would add to the process by submitting the comprehensive land use amendment to voters via a referendum, where they would have veto power. The amendments would be voted on during normal elections or special elections. Amendment 4 doesn?t cover re-zonings, variances, permits or annexations; just comprehensive plan changes.

I'm all for this. I don't buy the argument that it will stall growth. It seems to me that this would make it harder for developers to put in massive developments that don't match the current area since they would have to persuade an entire voting majority instead of the tried and true method of bribing or getting elected shady officials.

 

[Kurt]

The comp plan may affect furure developments but doesn't address specific developments. The changes and modifications are often technical in nature and might need some explanation to a voter. The process is open to public input along the way. Sometimes it is a word changed here, a sentence there, in order to clarify existing language.

Sometimes changes are larger and deal with building in a flood zone, buffers, roadways, etc.

As to whether amendment 4 is a good idea or not, I think it might depend on where you live, the quality of your planning department, and the level of public involvement.

 

[Andy A]

The average citizen is not qualified to make some of the technical changes and some of the requirements for well planned community growth. I know some will take great issue with this but it equates to would you go to your attorney for treatment of a tumor? Community development is as technical and complex as many other occupations. That is why we have planning departments, utility departments, code enforcement and a myriad of other enities charged with making sure our growth is what is best for all citizens. This does not even include our local elected officials who spend much time and offer open discussion to solve growth problems. "Hometown Democracy" as this is called by some, is a bad idea and a way for some to bypass our present system, not improve it.

 

[Matt J]

I understand that there is a technical part to this, but the actual choice on the ballot is yes/no not multiple choice or opinion. Are you seriously telling my that you feel all of the current county commissioners are better versed in planning that the average public?

 

[Andy A]

I understand that there is a technical part to this, but the actual choice on the ballot is yes/no not multiple choice or opinion. Are you seriously telling my that you feel all of the current county commissioners are better versed in planning that the average public?

No, some are, some are not. But I am telling you that people who work in the various departments have the education and experience necessary to assure proper planning and growth. Admittedly, it doesn't always happen and there are always mistakes made but that is true with any area of expertise. The average public not only has neither the education or experience to make many complex decisions regarding the comp plan and land use planning, most of them could care less and can be subject to be led like a herd of sheep to a desired voting result.

 

[Matt J]

No, some are, some are not. But I am telling you that people who work in the various departments have the education and experience necessary to assure proper planning and growth. Admittedly, it doesn't always happen and there are always mistakes made but that is true with any area of expertise. The average public not only has neither the education or experience to make many complex decisions regarding the comp plan and land use planning, most of them could care less and can be subject to be led like a herd of sheep to a desired voting result.

So you're for government decision and denying voters a voice?

Just want to make that clear.

Again the voting is not a multiple choice or essay, it's a simple yes/no. As far as everything that goes behind a comp plan change such as environmental impact, drainage, utilities, etc. that would all be worked out first and then the public would be able to decide if they wanted to allow the change.

For instance, when Water Color, Water Sound, Rosemary Beach, Alys Beach, etc. went in they would have been voted on by the public. I'm not trying to weigh the pros and cons of those developments as they are approved and either complete or on their way to that point. I'm simply pointing out that there would have been a voter decision to allow them.

 

[Kurt]

For instance, when Water Color, Water Sound, Rosemary Beach, Alys Beach, etc. went in they would have been voted on by the public. I'm not trying to weigh the pros and cons of those developments as they are approved and either complete or on their way to that point. I'm simply pointing out that there would have been a voter decision to allow them.

Changes to the com plan aren't always yes or no issues, and as I stated before, specific projects aren't addressed.

Not - "should WaterColor be approved" - yes or no, circle one. But rather, "should buffers be increased by 10 feet in zone X, if condition Y applies"? Sometimes the correct thing to do is dependent on several factors which are not going to be explained on a bumper sticker.

I like better the idea of careful consideration and public input in the process.

 

[NotDeadYet]

For instance, when Water Color, Water Sound, Rosemary Beach, Alys Beach, etc. went in they would have been voted on by the public. I'm not trying to weigh the pros and cons of those developments as they are approved and either complete or on their way to that point. I'm simply pointing out that there would have been a voter decision to allow them.

As I read what you posted above, I don't think this would have been the case. Individual developments are not comprehensive plan amendments. If a developer needs a comp plan amendment in order to get a permit, then that proposed amendment would be voted on. But this does not sound like it requires voter approval for specific developments.
Did WaterColor, Rosemary, etc. require comp plan amendments??

 

[TechPyle]

The comp plan may not act on individual developments but does it control or include the future land use? If so if a new development wishes to start work in an area with a land use that is not compatable such as a residential community along an area of 98 that is currently agg or some other that would require a vote to change that land use correct?

 

[NotDeadYet]

That's the way I read it, Tech Pyle. I think the answer to your second question would be yes. but I'm not certain. Need to read the whole amendment and check with a planner to be sure.
Re your first question, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) is a part of the comp plan, which does govern future land use. A FLUM amendment is what would be needed to change the current land use, say as in your example from agriculture to some other use.